Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[wierd]

How lovely that you have fallen for your own petard then.

"Fascism" does not have a single, well defined definition. Dont believe me, look it up and see for yourself.  Under many of the proposed definitions, the actions I have cited as extant would make modern corporations qualify.

But please, do continue to your argument from authority fallacy.

Exhibit A
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

Exibit B
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

Exhibit C
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism

Exhibit D
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

Exhibit E
http://www.anesi.com/Fascism-TheUltimateDefinition.htm


(and I could do this all day long.)

Using an amalgamation of the recurring themes in those not quite 100% matching definitions, we get something along the lines of:

An authoritarian regime that does not tolerate insubordination, which uses hypernationalism and propaganda, and which controls industry through indirect means "for the national interest."

By analogue, the mechanics of a modern corporation resemble this--  The CEO and board of directors does not tolerate insubordination, and controls the workers through indirect means (such as the courts, via such things as those agreements) for the corporation's interest.



Back on topic, RE:Is there a point to that?

There is a rather pernicious problem with people who are raised to be religious; they cannot seperate their faith's views of morality from the conception of morality. As such, they simply cannot fathom that there are other modalities of morality besides religious ones. Specifically, ones originating in their faith.  This is why many such people consider people of different faiths "innately evil", and can mentally justify atrocities against them.  I have had that very conversation with many people of religious conviction.  Try it yourself.

[TD1]

Yup.  The conflation of "Religionness!" with "Morality", (and the need for public schools to instil/reinforce moral instruction) often leads there.

"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!"  the religiouisity types squeal.  Same old story. Same old song and dance.

It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.

How much of the Bible have you read? Just curious to know where in the Bible God rapes. Also, what do you mean by fossilization.

I have read all of the Bible. Hell, I used to have favourite verses and stories from it.

Fossilized as in turned to stone, or rock salt in this case. Pillars of salt, etc.
As for raping, there are a number of cases in which God condones raping, even slavery. And, though it hadn't occurred to me until you asked, I suppose you could argue God raped Mary, as I don't recall ever reading of her giving consent. Just being told what to name the child.

[Bohandas]

Yup.  The conflation of "Religionness!" with "Morality", (and the need for public schools to instil/reinforce moral instruction) often leads there.

"You cant have right and wrong without GOD!!"  the religiouisity types squeal.  Same old story. Same old song and dance.

It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.

How much of the Bible have you read? Just curious to know where in the Bible God rapes. Also, what do you mean by fossilization.

I have read all of the Bible. Hell, I used to have favourite verses and stories from it.

Fossilized as in turned to stone, or rock salt in this case. Pillars of salt, etc.
As for raping, there are a number of cases in which God condones raping, even slavery. And, though it hadn't occurred to me until you asked, I suppose you could argue God raped Mary, as I don't recall ever reading of her giving consent. Just being told what to name the child.

I don't recall him having sex wih her either (unless you take a highly anachronistic interpretation of the phrasing of Luke 1:35)

[Rolan7]

I wasn't even thinking about teachers having a problem with it, though that was probably naive on my part.  I was thinking about the response from peers when the child doesn't join in the group recital.  It didn't go well for the Jehovah's Witness kids in the 40's, and I seem to remember more recent cases around 9/11.

For a long while kids weren't *required* to join in school prayer, but by choosing to abstain they disassociated themselves from the group.  It's literally equivalent to having a "voluntary" recital of any other political rhetoric, where any child is "free" to separate themselves from the group and watch.

As a reminder, this interesting derail started from the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

Assuming the God represents an actual deity, can someone explain why it isn't a betrayal of our ideals of liberty and religious freedom?

I don't think anyone would argue that the under God phrase in the pledge violates the separation of church and state. And today I'd say it violates our ideal of religious freedom too. Why it violates the ideal of liberty I'm not completely sure your reasoning for that, although as a monotheist, Loud Whispers point probably applies to me. The thing is that no one seems toseriously care enough about the pledge outside of schools enough to change it.

I think you missed a word, but you're saying it does violate separation of church and state?  Based on your second sentence.
As for liberty, the pledge is asserting that our nation is "under" another entity.  It's not Britain, but it's still a rejection of our independence. 
Just to belabor my point, some of the people who pushed this through were Catholic.

How much of the Bible have you read? Just curious to know where in the Bible God rapes. Also, what do you mean by fossilization.

There was a long discussion about this, let me find it...
Okay well, Numbers 31 involves giving women to the Levites (special chosen people of God, like Samson) to be raped.  Not exactly God raping though.
Oh it was in the previous thread, found it:

Mary did not choose to let the Holy Ghost impregnate her, she wasn't even asked.  She probably knew some of the stories of God's wrath, or at least that her cousin-in-law the priest had been struck dumb by a terrifying angel.  And here was the same angel, informing her of imminent... well... rape.  What the Holy Ghost did probably wasn't technically sex, but she was impregnated without her consent. 

And did she really even accept it?  She didn't openly defy the terrifying angel who cursed her cousin-in-law and made her cousin supernaturally pregnant.  It would have been pointless and she probably expected punishment if she expressed doubt or ingratitude.  So she agreed that the thing would happen, then *didn't tell her fiancee*.  She tried to go through with the marriage but her pregnancy was discovered.  Either she thought both visitations were just dreams, or she was trying to hide the fact that she was bearing *the Messiah*.

So yeah, as you probably expected, we're saying that God raped Mary by impregnating her without consent.  Even if that didn't involve penetration.

[Frumple]

Eh, mary might not count as rape, exactly. Forced impregnation, but that's a (very) marginally different thing. I don't think we actually have a proper singular word for that. It doesn't exactly come up very often without it being straight up rape.

As for god condoning rape, check Numbers (31), Deuteronomy (20, 21), some of the bits on slavery in Exodus (21, which pretty much says you're okay to rape your slaves), Samuel (2 Samuel 12, where god gives up a person's wives to their neighbor to be raped), Judges (21), and Zechariah (14, where god straight up says he's going to have the women of Jerusalem raped). Probably bits I'm missing, too. It pops up in a handful of places.

---

... did make me finally realize we actually have the technology to perform virgin births nowadays, don't we? If someone really wanted to, and could find a sufficiently unethical medical practitioner. Doesn't really mean much considering it's fairly arguable mary actually was a virgin, but still.

[TD1]

"Jesus is holy but... he was born out of wedlock! It is terrifying!"

"Eh...let's just say God popped him there."

It was inevitable.

[Orange Wizard]

It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.

By God's standards, God is moral. He's not moral by your (or someone else's) standards, but I'd also wager that your moral standards are largely irrelevant to him.

[TD1]

The point is that people think God's morals are somehow the standard by which we should act, and that is false. Nearly everybody would say rape is wrong, no matter the context or person who says it's okay.

So, whilst God thinks he is right, to many his view in this regard is wrong. At least, the view the Bible represents him as having is, for many, wrong. His moral standards are thought by many to be relevant, but just like mine are ultimately irrelevant.

[scrdest]

It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.

By God's standards, God is moral. He's not moral by your (or someone else's) standards, but I'd also wager that your moral standards are largely irrelevant to him.

If God's standards are not the same standards he demands of his followers, they aren't standards. And have the interesting implication that by the standards He demands of others, God is Evil.

OW, when did you start advocating Satanism?

[Bohandas]

It's actually ironic, as the God I see in the Bible (Jesus not counting, as there is nothing to say he is/was God) is not a moral one. Certainly the mass condemnation, rape and fossilisation are not messages I'd want my children reciting at Sunday school.

By God's standards, God is moral. He's not moral by your (or someone else's) standards, but I'd also wager that your moral standards are largely irrelevant to him.

Like the gods of the CTHULHU Mythos

[Orange Wizard]

OW, when did you start advocating Satanism?

'Bout the same time I posted this thread, actually. But I thought I was being subtle. How did you guess?

[scrdest]

Like the gods of the CTHULHU Mythos

Why the hell did you spell Cthulhu like that?

OW, when did you start advocating Satanism?

'Bout the same time I posted this thread, actually. But I thought I was being subtle. How did you guess?

Gut feeling. Also the down-pointed pentagram, but mostly gut feeling.

[Loud Whispers]

OW, when did you start advocating Satanism?

Why advocate Satanism when you can advocate Stannisism? STANNISISM THE MANNISISM

[TD1]

Because Satan is a misunderstood soul who looked to the stars and was, as a consequence, sealed in the lowest vaults of matter and time away from the stars. He was the insidious, yet loveable whisperer who told us of the advantages of knowledge.

Stannis is a cold brute of a man who acts on harsh duty. To quote (somewhat accurately, I hope) Jane Eyre, "feeling without judgement is too washy a draught...but reason without feeling is too bitter."

[origamiscienceguy]

The point is that people think God's morals are somehow the standard by which we should act, and that is false. Nearly everybody would say rape is wrong, no matter the context or person who says it's okay.

So, whilst God thinks he is right, to many his view in this regard is wrong. At least, the view the Bible represents him as having is, for many, wrong. His moral standards are thought by many to be relevant, but just like mine are ultimately irrelevant.

I think this is a bad example since God says rape is wrong too.